Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Morley]

We all owe you a debt of gratitude, consiglieri. I am repeatedly struck by the difficulty that non-attorneys have understanding the methods and ethics of being a good attorney. You represent the best of legal methods and ethics in the way you present the evidence in your ML video with Bill Reel. Even the most brilliant people sometimes do not understand how that works. It is challenging for non-attorneys to get it.

Bears repeating.

I think that both consiglieri (here) and Res Ipsa (Nelson's doors of death thread) have gotten a lot of unwarranted pushback, grounded in ignorance of how legal reasoning proceeds.

I imagine that, sometimes, we develop an unfortunate tendency to think that our own expertise in a given field hangs a halo of intellectual virtue upon any opinion we venture on any other disparate subject.
.

[Dr Exiled]

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. In my opinion, what consig said-- that if a subordinate had just 'backed off' when their boss and illicit romantic partner decided their affair should end, they could have kept their job-- as though the resulting problem was all the subordinate's doing because they didn't 'behave', had ALREADY dialed it up to eleven.

I was also deeply surprised that the person presenting the podcast would present such an opinion. I admit I don't watch his podcast, but I had always thought of it as presenting facts, or as close to facts as possible, and I read the transcript of this podcast, thinking that. I'm realizing now this was a defense of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation boards actions. That's fine, as a response to whatever Kwaku put online, it's just not what I was expecting.

I have opinions about lots of things.

I try to base those opinions on evidence and reasonable deductions from that evidence.

I don’t always get it right and make no claims to infallibility.

My goal in this podcast was to not insinuate my opinions into the presentation.

In other words, the evidence I presented is the evidence, regardless of what my opinion is of the evidence.

All in all, I think I did a pretty good job.

I don’t think my having an (undisclosed) opinion about the evidence prohibits me from presenting the evidence.

Nor does my having an opinion about the evidence change the nature of the evidence itself.

You, and others, were able to come to a different opinion based on the same evidence.

That is because reasonable minds can differ. And that is all to the good I think.

I agree with everyone when they say what a good job you did throughout.

[Doctor Steuss]

At this point, I think the picture is fairly clear that all of Rosebud’s so-called advocates are ultimately on a remote kamikaze mission, and are all too happy to be using Rosebud as the plane.

The only true winners here seem to be cringe entertainment, and the fremdschämen market.

[Lem]

My goal in this podcast was to not insinuate my opinions into the presentation.

In other words, the evidence I presented is the evidence, regardless of what my opinion is of the evidence.

All in all, I think I did a pretty good job.

I don’t think my having an (undisclosed) opinion about the evidence prohibits me from presenting the evidence.

Nor does my having an opinion about the evidence change the nature of the evidence itself.

You, and others, were able to come to a different opinion based on the same evidence.

No, that last statement, at least for me, isn't true, if you are referring to the evidence you presented. Initially I relied upon the statements from your interviewees. When the point was introduced that some were of the opinion that at least one of those interviewees was giving statements based on faulty memory that should not be considered as fact, I stopped relying on her opinions and went back to just documents and a verified timeline, including some verified documents and parts of documents that the podcast did not include.

As a result, my differing opinions are not based on the same evidence as that presented in the podcast.

And yes, I do think your opinion was expressed in your choice of which evidence and parts of evidence to post. Just one example, you posted texts that you stated were provided by JD. Maybe I missed it but I don't see that you independently verified those texts, other than to ask your interviewee who was there to support JD if she saw the texts, which in no way verifies or even considers if some texts were not shown to her. If I recall correctly, this was the same interviewee that others told me later had a memory that was not totally accurate. I may have missed where you asked the other side for their set of texts that they felt supported their point, and then presented a verified combination of both, I apologize if I did.

I'm realizing now this was a defense of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation boards actions. That's fine, as a response to whatever Kwaku put online, it's just not what I was expecting.

I think we talked about it further back, in that JD definitely coordinated with MS [edit to fix to ML, Thanks Kish] to massage the narrative. I think, but I’m too lazy to look for it, Consig copped to it, which is totally his prerogative. As someone making comments from the peanut gallery, I have no problem with MS being a homer for JD since the other players vying for the post-Mormon market are willing and able to frame their hot takes any way they want.

I don't have a problem with it either, now that I understand the context.

Again, I don't think it is wrong for anyone to have and express an opinion, especially not with the intent to make a case to support JD after Kwaku's podcast. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not a problem to point out that the choice of documents supported the case presented by the podcast. That's not an unbiased presentation, but again, in my opinion it doesn't need to be, and I for one, find it helpful to understand Consig's position and opinions, in addition to reading the podcast transcript.

(to consig: That's sincere, consig, I hope you can see that-- I am really not a podcast listener, but I really did put serious effort into reading through your transcript. I know it is generated automatically (!some of the language ends up being pretty funny) so I kept the podcast on at double playback speed to make sure I wasn't getting errors. That was torture for me, so please know it's only because I considered your presentation so valuable that I even attempted that. Thank you for your work.)

[Kishkumen]

My understanding is that the documents had originally been supplied as accurate under penalty of perjury in the investigation which was started by the New Hampshire Human Rights organization. In other words, these were the documents that were accessible and vouched for in some way. Not so, by the way, are Rosebud’s documents, as far as I know. It is *not* the case that consiglieri deliberately scrimped on evidence in order to advocate for JD. ML could not help that, up to the time when their show pushed Rosebud to release documents, there were no other documents that had been submitted in an official investigation that were available. I don’t know whether Rosebud’s documents have ever been submitted to an official investigation or under penalty of perjury, or with any kind of verification outside of the vouching of Rosebud’s own agents.

[Kishkumen]

Bears repeating.

I think that both consiglieri (here) and Res Ipsa (Nelson's doors of death thread) have gotten a lot of unwarranted pushback, grounded in ignorance of how legal reasoning proceeds.

I imagine that, sometimes, we develop an unfortunate tendency to think that our own expertise in a given field hangs a halo of intellectual virtue upon any opinion we venture on any other disparate subject.
.

Thank you for speaking up in praise of Res Ipsa. RI contributed invaluable legal expertise in this thread. The thread is much better for it.

[Lem]

My understanding is that the documents had originally been supplied as accurate under penalty of perjury in the investigation which was started by the New Hampshire Human Rights organization. In other words, these were the documents that were accessible and vouched for in some way. Not so, by the way, are Rosebud’s documents, as far as I know. It is *not* the case that consiglieri deliberately scrimped on evidence in order to advocate for JD. ML could not help that, up to the time when their show pushed Rosebud to release documents, there were no other documents that had been submitted in an official investigation that were available. I don’t know whether Rosebud’s documents have ever been submitted to an official investigation or under penalty of perjury, or with any kind of verification outside of the vouching of Rosebud’s own agents.

I was referring to the text messages provided by JD and various parts of email threads, but yes, I agree with your point about the other documents.

[Kishkumen]

I was referring to the text messages provided by JD and various parts of email threads, but yes, I agree with your point about the other documents.

I was including those too. How can the fact that Rosebud has consistently refused to release documents up to this document dump reflect negatively on consiglieri or be used to accuse him of bias? I don’t get it. Look at my signature. That is an accurate Rosebud quote and it was written in seriousness. What does one do with that?

[huckelberry]

We all owe you a debt of gratitude, consiglieri. I am repeatedly struck by the difficulty that non-attorneys have understanding the methods and ethics of being a good attorney. You represent the best of legal methods and ethics in the way you present the evidence in your ML video with Bill Reel. Even the most brilliant people sometimes do not understand how that works. It is challenging for non-attorneys to get it.

Bears repeating.

I think that both consiglieri (here) and Res Ipsa (Nelson's doors of death thread) have gotten a lot of unwarranted pushback, grounded in ignorance of how legal reasoning proceeds.

I imagine that, sometimes, we develop an unfortunate tendency to think that our own expertise in a given field hangs a halo of intellectual virtue upon any opinion we venture on any other disparate subject.
.

"Bears repeating" Morley Bellows in the race towards page 200.

Sorry Morley I am honestly not trying to give you a hard time , just a little fun.

[consiglieri]

We all owe you a debt of gratitude, consiglieri. I am repeatedly struck by the difficulty that non-attorneys have understanding the methods and ethics of being a good attorney. You represent the best of legal methods and ethics in the way you present the evidence in your ML video with Bill Reel. Even the most brilliant people sometimes do not understand how that works. It is challenging for non-attorneys to get it.

Bears repeating.

I think that both consiglieri (here) and Res Ipsa (Nelson's doors of death thread) have gotten a lot of unwarranted pushback, grounded in ignorance of how legal reasoning proceeds.

I imagine that, sometimes, we develop an unfortunate tendency to think that our own expertise in a given field hangs a halo of intellectual virtue upon any opinion we venture on any other disparate subject.
.

A temptation lawyers must constantly guard against!

LOL!